All have equal chance in education
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
The problem here is not with the students or their abilities. The interviewers have failed in their job, which is to identify the academic potential of the students and to accommodate for the applicants' different interviewing styles.
Irrelevant. We're discussing educational opportunities here, so employment opportunities and even the impact of lack of educational opportunities are red herrings. Let's not muddy the waters here.
This still begs the question - I didn't ask if people got enough money, I asked how education and finances would help parents do more for their kids. I'll put it to you bluntly: if I gave you ten grand today, what precisely would your plan be to help your kid get better grades, and how would it work?
Nope. This is the pitfall of all policymakers - those that believe that throwing money at a problem only find that at the end of the process they're broke and they haven't achieved a thing. It's not what you've got - it's how you go about solving the problem.
All of the above is based upon the assumption that the teaching that students receive during class time is ineffective. That's like going out and buying a Ferrari because you assume that a Toyota isn't going to get you from Point A to Point B. Why not focus on solutions to make classroom teaching more effective?
It would affect their studies if you assume that the only predictor of academic performance is the amount of time spent studying, ignoring other factors like efficiency of study techniques.
Certainly if a kid spent all his time after school and weekends helping run the family chicken rice stall with absolutely no time to do homework, you would have a problem there. On the other hand, I'd wager that such cases do not constitute a significant proportion of Singaporean students.
Let's take a step back here and be solution-focussed rather than problem-focussed.
ok, let's clarify. do u mean by education specifically only school education? or does it include other chances tt a child might have to take part in activities tt can help him or her improve as a person?
i believe we might be talking abt a diff demographic here.
i wld save up the money, to answer u bluntly, so tt my kid wld nt have to work to get pocket money. and he or she wld be able to use the money for overseas excursions and wld nt miss out simply because we can't afford it as a family.
my case is related to specifically how financial assistance can benefit *financially poor* children. in terms of classroom solutions, this is smth tt applies across t the board and affects kids who may come from well to do families as well.
moreover, isn't this solution u recommend also based on the assumption tt teaching is ineffective?
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
Nope. It’s not abt “dropping out”. That would be the extreme. I think most of us basically have the means to not drop out. What I’m saying is that getting the basics is not a big problem, but those who come fr low income families are disadvantaged when it comes to the extras that would’ve enhanced their education, such as further readings, immersion programmes, even hostel stays. They can only afford the basics, but not the rest tt wld enhance their education (the things that other students who have money can afford).
Further readings and immersion programmes?
Hang on - by the time you get to university you're meant to have developed the capacity to have self-directed learning already. Certainly when I was at university I didn't go for any extra pay-per-use courses or classes, and any extra reading I needed could be found in the library. That didn't stop me from staying in the top 5% of my classes. What's with all of this extra stuff?
From what you wrote earlier, it sounded like people were dropping out of university because they couldn't afford it. Now, to be blunt, the tune seems to have changed to "they didn't have money to get the nice-to-haves".
Originally posted by cathykitty:By university, we would be able to apply for the tuition fee loan, with interest, of course. But the bursaries would have been very useful in paying for other items, and certainly, in ensuring that I would not have to resort to giving private tuition to get pocket money, which I did, sometimes, at the expense of time spent on my studies.
While it’s true that lots of uni students work part-time, it would be better if these jobs were taken out of choice (such as, they have gauged tt they wld be able to cope even with the job), rather than out of necessity.
You get no sympathy here. Between classes, homework, placements/internships and paid work, an 85-hour week was an easy one for me, with the norm being a 105-hour week. I did that for eight years.
Originally posted by cathykitty:Lots of things can be “bought”. Money has been taken for granted, perhaps unwittingly, by the people who have it. Try living on two dollars a day for a month, and you will see how important money is, and what a difference it makes to have and not have money.
Again, not impressed - been there, done that, and paid work sorted that problem out. It didn't stop me at all.
Originally posted by cathykitty:Again, I think this idea that people from poorer familes ought not to be given “too much” financial assistance is an idea that is perpetuated by the very pple who do not need such assistance. And who would rather spend money on other areas, like, as mentioned, reconstructing school buildings, creating impressive structures, rather than helping the “soul” of the schools, which are the students.
Wrong. Throwing money at the students is like slapping a band-aid on an AIDS patient. You may cover up the symptoms but you're missing the root cause of the problem altogether.
When I did a stint as a relief teacher, my biggest problem was not class discipline. it wasn't students who didn't get the idea either.
The problem was the lazy, unimaginative 20-year veteran teachers who didn't want their iron rice bowls disturbed.
By the end of my first month, my poorest-performing students were showing a minimum grade improvement of 15%. The problem wasn't that they were incapable of understanding the subject matter. The problem was that the teacher I was relieving was absolutely hopeless at presenting the subject matter and diagnosing where the students were having difficulty.
For example, in maths classes, it was obvious that the Chinese-educated students were as arithmetically capable as the English-educated ones., but they really struggled with the problem sums. I took a week out of the syllabus to focus on English and to teach the students to break the sentences down and understand what was being asked of them. It took a day to diagnose the problem and a week to remedy it, and I got an easy minimum 15% improvement. I wasn't MOE trained - I just used my common sense to sort things out. What the hell was the other teacher doing?
After I got the result, the older teachers came up to me and said, "Don't work too hard". Honest to God, I swear that they said those precise words. Next thing I knew, these teachers were going to the principal and complaining that I was "getting along too well" with the kids. WTF does that mean? Was I accused of being a pedophile?!
What it came down to was this group mentality amongst the older teachers that as long as nobody produced a good result, they could all do their own thing and collect their own paychecks without accountability.
If you want to do something to help the poorer kids, start making teachers as accountable for performance as anybody in the real world, and fire them if they screw up. They're too damned comfortable in their jobs and it's the students who suffer for it.
-
After I got the result, the older teachers came up to me and said, "Don't work too hard". Honest to God, I swear that they said those precise words. Next thing I knew, these teachers were going to the principal and complaining that I was "getting along too well" with the kids. WTF does that mean? Was I accused of being a pedophile?!
It's still like that now.
If your students improve a lot under you, the other teachers are not happy. They levy charges like what you said, and other charges like: "the paper you set was too easy" and spread rumours like "must have leaked the questions to the students"
Lots of backstabbing in MOE schools, especially with the new grading system. That's why it's better to be a tuition teacher.
-
ah, then tt wld be an issue of teacher training. fr what i know, teachers here have been complaining abt being too bogged down by admin work tt they are unable to focus on preparing really well thought out lessons for the kids.
i actually took care in my first and second post to ensure tt i made my pt clear.
this was yesterday. i dun believe i have changed my tune today. wrt my first or second post on this thread, do go back n read the last para of the post.
i've nv disputed the pt tt pple here have access to basic education.
jus cos we came out alright doesn't mean tt we can't fight for more help for others.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
It's more about personal goals sometimes. There are many people smarter than me around, yet though they have a goal to do well in their studies, it's a half hearted goal. Thus, no concerted effort was made to achieve it.... and this usually explains why they do not succeed as well as they like to...
In a way, there's also a natural talent for the subject on hand too. -
Originally posted by cathykitty:
ok, let's clarify. do u mean by education specifically only school education? or does it include other chances tt a child might have to take part in activities tt can help him or her improve as a person?
Don't know about you, but I was talking about academic education as per the original post's intent, not moral, religious or any other form of education. So throwing more money at a kid is going to make him a better person?
Originally posted by cathykitty:i wld save up the money, to answer u bluntly, so tt my kid wld nt have to work to get pocket money. and he or she wld be able to use the money for overseas excursions and wld nt miss out simply because we can't afford it as a family.
my case is related to specifically how financial assistance can benefit *financially poor* children. in terms of classroom solutions, this is smth tt applies across t the board and affects kids who may come from well to do families as well.
So lemme get this straight. The money's for overseas holidays, not anything to help the kids achieve better grades?
Originally posted by cathykitty:moreover, isn't this solution u recommend also based on the assumption tt teaching is ineffective?
Yes it is, but it makes more sense to me to fix the Toyota than buy the Ferrari.
-
-
yes, actually. what i meant was tt kids fr less well off families can have a relatively comprehensive education in sch.
but they are limited in other sorts of activities.
MOE claimed in the first letter tt lower income family kids face no such constraints cos of adequate funding.
let's try not to over use analogies. it confuses things. :/
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
yes, actually. what i meant was tt kids fr less well off families can have a relatively comprehensive education in sch.
but they are limited in other sorts of activities.
let's try not to over use analogies. it confuses things. :/
yes , people from poor family work harder, be more tolerant to heavy load of study
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
yes , people from poor family work harder, be more tolerant to heavy load of study
ok, i wanna clarify tt i have graduated already.
so, nt complaining in tt sense...
jus trying to discuss if lower income kids need more help. .
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
i actually took care in my first and second post to ensure tt i made my pt clear.
Your first post was about scholarships, funding, employment opportunities, good parenting, more resources from moe.
Your second post was about asking if NUS business school really requires AAA grades for entry. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go to the third post.
The third post was about scholarships and bursaries being too competitive, mentoring of students, parents' professions, kids who become doctors, providing financial assistance to kids, your father's salary and easing the rules for bursaries.
Checking .... checking .... nope, you did not at all make any point about teacher tarining, admin work or planning out lessons.
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
ok, i wanna clarify tt i have graduated already.
so, nt complaining in tt sense...
jus trying to discuss if lower income kids need more help. .
what i want to say is that, the world is generally fair, you parent got alot money, but they getting divorce, or .. you are spoiled by alot allowance moneyyou parent is poor, but they love you very much, and you learn to be filial, and do saving.
To me, the both case sound equal weight to me, and i prefer the latter one,
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
let's try not to over use analogies. it confuses things. :/
What is confusing things is your repeatedly saying that more funding is needed without making a direct link between said funding and improvements in grades. What's even more confusing is your suggestion of overseas holidays for the kids.
There's no need for more funding. What's needed is for the guts of the current education system to be ripped out and thrown in the bin. Teachers need to be made accountable for their performance and the deadwood needs to be weeded out. no more iron rice bowls, no more free rides, no more sinking to the lowest common denominator.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
What is confusing things is your repeatedly saying that more funding is needed without making a direct link between said funding and improvements in grades. What's even more confusing is your suggestion of overseas holidays for the kids.
There's no need for more funding. What's needed is for the guts of the current education system to be ripped out and thrown in the bin. Teachers need to be made accountable for their performance and the deadwood needs to be weeded out. no more iron rice bowls, no more free rides, no more sinking to the lowest common denominator.
if moe teachers become super effective, then even harder to earn from tuition le
-
ok, man. i think u've missed my point. the triple As paragraph btw, was a response to someone's complaint tt NUS business sch was becoming more strict. however, if u'd read more carefully, u'd realise tt my second post wasn't just abt tt. basically, there's jus one point i am making. in the last para of my post, 3 DECEMBER 6:38 PM "i think the system here helps poorer kids to get thru school up to a point. and in tt sense, it is “equal� because everyone can have an education. but if the kids shld need more help, they will have a lot of problems finding it." that, Gedanken, is the main point i am making. the "equal" education is not that equal if we take into account other activities tt cld contribute to the child's learning. poorer students miss out on those. the points abt teachers and training in the post previous to this one was actually only made to counter a point abt "old teachers" tt u brought up. in fact, i am not too comfortable with how u seem to generalise tt older teachers are not responsible and just too "damned comfortable". those sound like judgement calls that are better suited for a teacher's gripe thread on "i hate old teachers who dun do their work". certainly not this thread, which is supposed a discussion on whether or not singapore kids have equal education, regardless of their parents' wealth (pls see the first letter from MOE, and *read it*) basically, i am saying tt ur bringing in the teachers into this discussion of an equal education is IRRELEVANT. when the term "equal education" is used in the thread topic, there is the implication tt it is smth to be discussed at the policy level. that is how i interprete it anyway. so, i don't think we shld talk abt teachers or "classroom solutions" too much, because school teachers (who have not gone on to become MOE officers) have very little bearing on our education policies. in case u didn't know, Singapore works top-down. since my argument sounds so muddled to you (perhaps i've brought in too many red herrings), why don't you tell me *your* main line of argument. you have gone fr socie analysis to telling us how u've managed your time well in uni to finally, talking abt "old teachers" being, essentially, ineffective in the classroom. i really lost track of what you were trying to say somewhere along the way. can u explain to me what you mean by "throw in the bin". are u suggesting tt the older teachers be fired if they underperform? also, what are u gg to replace with these teachers? robots? in case u didn't know, MOE has problems hiring teachers and getting them to stay long term. and as it is, class sizes are already 40 to one teacher for sec schools. what's ur point, really? do you think singaporean kids have equal education? if you will be so kind, summarise ur main argument in one paragraph. or refer me to a section in ur previous post tt makes it clear. thanks.
-
"In fact, they come from more than 95 per cent of our primary schools and across all socio-economic groups."
If there are 1800 pupils and there are 18 schools. The top 5 per cent of my students will mean 90 students. Out of that 90, I have 60 students coming from A Star school, and the other 30 students distributed amongst the 17 schools.
Yay! the top 5 per cent of our cohort come from 100 percent of our primary schools in Singapore.
Nice try..
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
the triple As paragraph btw, was a response to someone’s complaint tt NUS business sch was becoming more strict. however, if u’d read more carefully, u’d realise tt my second post wasn’t just abt tt.Stop right there. Your second post in its entirety reads:
Originally posted by cathykitty:
are the grades cut-off really AAA for NUS business school? where did this info come from? :/Did you write in invisible text? From what's been repeated verbatim, the only topic of that post was about the AAA requirement for NUS Business.
Originally posted by cathykitty:
basically, there's jus one point i am making.in the last para of my post, 3 DECEMBER 6:38 PM
“i think the system here helps poorer kids to get thru school up to a point. and in tt sense, it is “equal” because everyone can have an education. but if the kids shld need more help, they will have a lot of problems finding it.”
that, Gedanken, is the main point i am making. the “equal” education is not that equal if we take into account other activities tt cld contribute to the child’s learning. poorer students miss out on those.
So that's your story now? It's odd, because you wrote:
Originally posted by cathykitty:
ah, then tt wld be an issue of teacher training. fr what i know, teachers here have been complaining abt being too bogged down by admin work tt they are unable to focus on preparing really well thought out lessons for the kids.i actually took care in my first and second post to ensure tt i made my pt clear.
Sorry? What was your point again? Moving the goalposts is a cheap trick, and it's one that I will neither tolerate nor let get past me. I put it to you that you either do not have any awareness of what you are writing, or you are not telling the truth. Either way, you have just demonstrated that the veracity of what you write cannot reasonably be assumed.
Originally posted by cathykitty:
the points abt teachers and training in the post previous to this one was actually only made to counter a point abt “old teachers” tt u brought up. in fact, i am not too comfortable with how u seem to generalise tt older teachers are not responsible and just too “damned comfortable”. those sound like judgement calls that are better suited for a teacher’s gripe thread on “i hate old teachers who dun do their work”. certainly not this thread, which is supposed a discussion on whether or not singapore kids have equal education, regardless of their parents’ wealth (pls see the first letter from MOE, and read it)Given the points I have demonstrated above, you'll understand if I do not take your advice to “read it” with any measure of seriousness. I don't have the time to go after individuals who steal the public's money by drawing paychecks that they don't deserve. Had you taken your own advice, you would have realised immediately (as eagle had) that I was talking about the system's tolerance of such individuals rather than the individuals per se.
Originally posted by cathykitty:
basically, i am saying tt ur bringing in the teachers into this discussion of an equal education is IRRELEVANT. when the term “equal education” is used in the thread topic, there is the implication tt it is smth to be discussed at the policy level. that is how i interprete it anyway. so, i don’t think we shld talk abt teachers or “classroom solutions” too much, because school teachers (who have not gone on to become MOE officers) have very little bearing on our education policies. in case u didn’t know, Singapore works top-down.It's astounding how you could trip over yourself within the space of a short paragraph like the one above. Singapore works top down, so everything is driven by policy, and to boot you acknowledge that the title of the thread implies policy-level discussion, but then you go on to say that we shouldn't talk about it? If you think I'm sounding frustrated at this point, it will be the first accurate judgement that you have made so far. If I'm you are indeed a graduate as you claim, I'm very disappointed. What you have done above fails the basic level of analysis that is the raison d'etre of undergraduate education. Had one of my Honours students written what you had, I would have immediately told them that they would fail because they just sank their own ship.
Originally posted by cathykitty:
since my argument sounds so muddled to you (perhaps i’ve brought in too many red herrings), why don’t you tell me your main line of argument.you have gone fr socie analysis to telling us how u’ve managed your time well in uni to finally, talking abt “old teachers” being, essentially, ineffective in the classroom.
i really lost track of what you were trying to say somewhere along the way. can u explain to me what you mean by “throw in the bin”. are u suggesting tt the older teachers be fired if they underperform?
Again, disappointing. You have failed to see how each piece fits into the overall picture. The “socie analysis”, as you fail to grasp it, demonstrates the basic tenet of this entire discussion. Teachers cannot make students learn anything; they can only help students learn. Someone with knowledge of teaching, like eagle, grasp this immediately, but because you fail to understand it you choose to disregard it. For someone who claims to have tertiary education, I am saddened to tell you that you have failed to develop the basic level of intellectual discipline required of you qualification.
As for the time management point, that has nothing to do with the main line of argument. The intent was simply to tell you that your sob story about balancing work and studies doesn't hold water. Many have done more and gone further.
Vis-a-vis the “old teachers” point, as I've already said, you're barking up the wrong tree and making yourself uncomfortable for nothing. I'll review and extend in the next point.
Originally posted by cathykitty:
also, what are u gg to replace with these teachers? robots? in case u didn’t know, MOE has problems hiring teachers and getting them to stay long term. and as it is, class sizes are already 40 to one teacher for sec schools.what’s ur point, really? do you think singaporean kids have equal education? if you will be so kind, summarise ur main argument in one paragraph. or refer me to a section in ur previous post tt makes it clear. thanks.
Okay, by this point, given all of the wrong turns you've taken, I can't fault you for your conclusion, only for the wrong turns and lack of intellectual discipline. Given your demonstrated lack of capacity for identifying underlying concepts, I guess I'll have to spell it out, loathe as I am to repeat myself.
First, I'll go one better - here's a sentence that summarises everything: if school teachers were doing their jobs, we wouldn't be talking now.
I'll say it again: teachers cannot make students learn anything; they can only help students learn. This is a well-researched and widely-accepted underpinning of what the teaching industry worldwide knows about the practice of teaching. The incorporation of this simple point is the underpinning of any school of thought in teaching excellence. The ones who don't get that their job is to do their utmost to help their students learn are the ones who deserve to get fired.
It's been done before. In the early 90's, Victorian premier Jeff Kennett shook up the state's teaching industry by annulling all long-term teaching contracts and forcing teachers to justify their continued employment. There was a huge public uproar and strikes all over the place but guess what?
It worked.
Teachers took up being serious about knowing what their jobs were and teaching standards improved markedly. Those who couldn't or wouldn't get it were fired. Tough luck – the Department of Education's job was to provide (surprise) quality education to the kids and they did that. Losers who thought they had an ironclad meal ticket lost out, and I'll shed no tears for them.
Next, I'll say it again: teachers cannot make students learn anything; they can only help students learn. You're never going to turn Forrest Gump into Albert Einstein, but dammit, if you've helped Forrest do the best he's capable of, you've done your job.
And every school teacher is employed to do his or her job.
This leads me to the piece la resistance. If teachers did do what they were supposed to do, this discussion wouldn't be taking place because no amount of private tuition, *ahem* immersion programmes or trips on the River Seine for 14-year-olds would make a significant difference to the kids' grades.
Quod erat demonstradum.
Originally posted by cathykitty:
ok, man. i think u’ve missed my point.I haven't missed your point. You, on the other hand, have missed your point.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
if moe teachers become super effective, then even harder to earn from tuition le
Hey, who knows? You might become valued as a mainstrean teacher.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Hey, who knows? You might become valued as a mainstrean teacher.
I rather keep my full time job as an engineer, and at the same time move on to a full-time job as a private tutor. The two working hours do not really clash
-
>> This leads me to the piece la resistance (shouldn't it be "piece de la resistance"?). If teachers did do what they were supposed to do, this discussion wouldn't be taking place because no amount of private tuition, *ahem* immersion programmes or trips on the River Seine for 14-year-olds would make a significant difference to the kids' grades.
So, by your argument, if teachers become more effective via the policy of eliminating the lousy ones, poorer students would not need private tutors, and richer parents would not hire private tutors?
Correct?
Hence, the problem of inequality would be solved. Yes?
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
So, by your argument, if teachers become more effective via the policy of eliminating the lousy ones, poorer students would not need private tutors, and richer parents would not hire private tutors?
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Stop getting hung up on red herrings. We're talking about instituting a performance culture within teaching, a culture you find in other sectors. Some teachers won't get with the program and those will have to go, but that's incidental to the main point that you seem either unwilling or incapable of grasping.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Stop getting hung up on red herrings. We're talking about instituting a performance culture within teaching, a culture you find in other sectors. Some teachers won't get with the program and those will have to go, but that's incidental to the main point tyhat you seems either unwilling or incapable of getting.
sup fella, morning
-
Ok, sorry then, Gedanken. I don't think I have grasped your main ideas. When I have more time away fr work, I'll read thru all the posts more thoroughly again.
With regards to your previous post, there are already performance-based assessments for teachers in Singapore. But I suppose you're right that even if a teacher has a low rank in the system, he or she might still be able to stay on.
However, I do know of teachers in Singapore who have been asked to leave because of poor performance (heard abt it thru my teacher friends). But they would have to be really bad for that to happen.
Would this help with the performance culture you're talking abt?
It's the same for universities here, but I have heard of at least one case, where this policy has been abused by unscrupulous department heads who used "ineffective" as an excuse to get rid of a good teacher who spoke up against them.